Mah Bow Tan
Singapore
“The previous generation of Singaporeans overcame huge odds together to create this improbable nation which we call home. Let this generation work as one to define our country for the next lap of our journey. Sir, on this note, I fully support the amended Motion. Page: 143”
“Like all upgrading programmes, there is a certain budget, and a certain pace at which we will build. We have completed the LUP and now we are going on towards the HIP. The Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) is ongoing.”
“For those who cannot afford home ownership, we will provide rental flats. For the rest where there is hardship involved, that is where the safety net comes in. I do not think we should make the safety net so wide as to bring in everybody.”
“Building a studio apartment is no different from building any other HDB flat. If a person applies now and the building works start now, he can get it in two-and-a-half years to three years. We have stepped up the building of studio apartments over the last couple of years.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people have signed an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) and how many have revoked them since; and (b) whether there is a need to review the current rules on AMDs which do not require a person who has revoked the AMD to inform the Registrar, thus causing uncertainty for hospitals t…”
“Parents who wish to exert more control over the maximum mobile service charges incurred by their children may consider service options such as mobile pre-paid cards. IDA is aware of the public's concerns on mobile subscriptions, and will continually review policies and look into measures to further protect the interest of consumers.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,030 lines we hold for Mah Bow Tan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 48 of 61.
“But while I say that the basic financing principles for rail, bus and taxi are the same, we must also recognise that there are differences in the cost structure of rail, bus and taxi operations. Because they have a different cost structure and the economics is different, therefore we also need to recognise and levy different rates. We need different solutions. Therefore, for the rail industry, the White Paper has revised its financing framework and redefined the replacement of operating assets; for the bus industry, the White Paper calls for bus fares to be adjusted in small steps on a regular basis, if they can justify it. If fares are adjusted to take care of rising wages and other operational cost, and incentives are given for bus operators to run their fleet in the most efficient manner, then there will be sufficient incentives for bus operators to provide good service and at the same time give good return for their shareholders. There is no need for us to apply the same formula as for rail by co-financing or co-paying for buses. I see no justification for that whatsoever. Of course, there have been other calls on Government for more subsidies. There has always been this point that the Government should not be talking about money. In fact, there have been some people who said we should be providing these services free because after all it is the Government's duty to provide something as basic as transport infrastructure. If that were the case, then we should also be providing public utilities like water and electricity also for free. So these are calls which we have to constantly guard against. They are very easy to make. The Opposition comes up with it from time to time. It is very seductive.”
“There are other people, however, who feel that the financing framework is in fact not generous enough and specifically there was a request by SBS, which is supported by some Members of this House, to also help defray part of their operating cost, like co-financing the cost of replaceing bus fleet. Let me say, first of all, that the Government has adopted similar financing approaches, whether it be for rail, bus or taxi transport. We bear the cost of the infrastructure and users pay for operating cost. So in the case of buses, Government pays for bus interchanges, roads, expressways, bus stops and bus stands; and in the case of taxis, all of these and taxi stands as well. Further, the Government helps scheduled bus operators to keep their cost of bus fleet low. They are exempted from COE and ALS. What is the result? They have fared well. They have turned in respectable performances. Bus fares have been kept reasonable. In the case of taxis, they enjoy a host of vehicle tax concessions, even though they occupy the same road space as the car. We have given concessions for taxis on ARF. They do not pay the full ARF. Cars pay 150% and taxis pay a flat $2,000. Taxi owners pay lower customs duties, lower registration fees, a flat road tax regardless of engine size. They do not have to bid for Category 3 COEs, rather they go for PQP (prevailing quota premium) for Category 2 cars. Again, in this kind of a tax regime, taxi operators have fared well. They make a decent living. Taxi fares are kept, as people do agree, reasonable. We have not treated them exactly like cars but we treat them as the highest grade of public transport.”
“It also means that if we want to finance the replacement and extension of future rail systems, we must have the funds to do so. So the underlying, unstated assumption in the White Paper is that we continue to have good Government, we continue with rational policies which will keep our economy strong and growing and provide sufficient surpluses to finance all our public projects, including the renewal of operating assets for the rail system of the future. Some Members of this House argued very strongly that Government should be spending more on transport. They used the comparisons between the revenue that is collected from vehicle taxes and COEs and so on, and compare it with expenditure on transport. Having made the comparison, they come to the conclusion that since we have collected so much money, we should be spending it. I think the Government has explained many times that vehicle taxes, like other revenues, go into the Consolidated Fund, which is administered by the Ministry of Finance. This is the same consolidated fund which is used to finance projects like housing, education and health which Dr Lee mentioned. This arrangement ensures that taxpayers' money is most well spent to bring maximum benefit to the nation. Indeed as I listened to the debate and I was scribbling the notes, the wish-list kept getting longer and longer and each speaker kept adding to the list. If we added it all up, I think you would get quite a fright. Because there is really no end to how far and how much we want to spend. If I may quote Dr Lee, there is really no such thing as a free lunch. In the case that we have proposed in the new financing formula, we believe that the lunch we intend to serve will be affordable.”
“The difference of $3 billion would be paid in year 30 by the Government and tomorrow's generation of commuters will have to cover the cost of the second set of trains in year 30. This is how each generation of commuters pay for its own set of trains. This is a fairer system. Even if we start a sinking fund, as suggested by Mr Heng Chiang Meng and several others, it would mean that the present Government, if we did not change the formula, would have to pay for future commuters' consumption, and the present Government would still need to generate surpluses. So by changing this formula, it has allowed us to relieve the operators from the burden of having to provide through their fare box the extra fares that are needed to buy the next set of trains. Some Members have expressed concern that the revised formula will burden future governments. I think it is right that these concerns should be expressed by Dr Ow Chin Hock and Mr Chng Hee Kok. But the formula that we have is a fairer formula and it is up to the future government to decide on how best it finances their component of the operating assets. It can use several methods. It can use the surpluses that it generates. It can use past reserves if the Elected President approves it. It can issue bonds to raise funds. It can raise taxes. Or if the elected government of the day has allowed the economy to degenerate and is in no position to pay, the only choice it has may be to delay the replacement, and to run the trains, decrepit though they may be, because there is no other choice. So this reinforces the point that we have to be judicious when we are building infrastructure and rail extensions today to make absolutely sure that the projects we intend to invest in will be economically viable and sustainable.”
“This lowers the hurdle rates for rail projects and it allows a rail network to grow and allows us to grow our public transport system in a way which is highly reliable and efficient, but at the same time it does not forsake the concept of partnership, ie, Government builds the infrastructure and commuters pay fares that cover the operating cost. Many Members in this House are concerned that we are moving very far away from our existing financial policy. There have been many other questions raised about the financing framework by Dr Lee, Mr Chew Heng Ching, Mr Heng Chiang Meng and many others. Let me explain. The revised formula retains the concept of partnership, as I said, but it changes the treatment of operating assets like trains, signalling systems and escalators because these are equipment that generally have a life span not exceeding 30 years. In the old financing framework, Government pays for the first set of assets and the operator is required to set aside funds from fares to finance the replacement of all these operating assets. What this arrangement de facto means is that the present generation of commuters - those who take the trains today - will have to pay for the next set of trains to be used by the next generation of commuters. Let me just illustrate. Assuming operating assets comprise trains which cost $1 billion today and assuming that the replacement set that is due in 30 years' time will cost $4 billion. The old formula will require the operator to charge the present generation of commuters a fare that would pay for the replacement set of trains costing $4 billion in year 30. The new financing formula in contrast requires today's commuters to pay only the historical cost of $1 billion towards the replacement cost of the next set.”
“What is important to recognise when we are talking about financing of rail is that whichever way the Government decides to finance the development of the infrastructure for rail, the cost ultimately is borne by us, the taxpayers. We can choose to pay for both infrastructure and operations, as some Members have suggested, but where will the funds come from? From general taxation or at the expense of budgets for something else, for education, health or housing. We can do what the French government does, which is to impose a transport tax on employers to finance public transport improvements. It is very attractive for some people but again ultimately this must mean lower wages for workers or higher prices of goods. So the question, therefore, is not who pays, but what is the financial arrangement that we must adopt which can (a) encourage fiscal prudence; (b) encourage individual financial discipline; and (c) encourage operators to keep their operations efficient, lean and trim. If we can do that, then not only the commuters but the taxpayers will get the best value for money. So the key is to retain this partnership concept that balances the interest and the financial responsibility of the commuters, operators and the Government. Under the current financial arrangement, commuters are burdened by the responsibility to pay fares and these are the fares that cover the cost of not just the direct operations but also the replacement of assets. This is the reason why the Government has decided to revise the financial regime for rail and to redefine operating cost to mean the historical cost for the first set of trains.”
“In other words, to minimise the need for travel, and this is done through sound land use planning integrated with transport planning. He also suggested staggered working hours. I believe the civil service does practise staggered working hours. As for school hours, in fact, there is really no reason to change the school hours because the school hours dovetail very nicely into the peak hours for the working population. And because schools start earlier and buses are able to ferry both school children as well as adult workers, there is an optimal usage of resources. So it may not be necessary to touch the school hours. Tele-working, yes, this is a new idea. This is now possible with advances in technology and I think companies will, on their own accord, go for this method of operation, particularly if we introduce road usage measures, because this will then force individuals as well as companies to re-examine their present mode of operation. I turn now to the question on financing. This is a question of great concern to many Members. Let me start by saying that the experience of major cities around the world and these are the cities that we have cited - Paris, London, Tokyo - points to a very heavy reliance on rail. Rail can provide that high level quality service and reliable form of public transport that compact cities need and that people living in those cities desire. And as Singapore becomes more compact and as the aspiration for a high level of service goes up, we too have to go for the rail option. But rail options are expensive options. Rail systems are very expensive to build and operate.”
“There are 250 small-car COEs a month. He says we need not ballot all. Let us say we take half, ie, 100 COEs a month. Who will qualify is the next question. By salary level, first-time car owners, newly married couples, those with children, those who do not have a car? Assuming we can settle that question, after we have done the balloting, you will find that there will be a few very happy people but a lot of very unhappy people. When HDB had balloting for flats, we met many people who came to see us at our meet-the-people sessions. They complained that this was a very unfair system, because so-and-so balloted for the first time got a flat. And he, with a wife and four children and living with his parents in a 3-room flat, had balloted 10 times but could not get a flat. So even HDB, which tried the balloting system, decided to revert to queuing. What more in this case where there is simply no logical reason for us to ballot for cars. I do not think Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon actually thought through his proposal when he came to this House. In any case, if he is really suggesting a lottery, there is already a system like this in town. It is called the Big Sweep. For $2, if you are lucky, you can go and buy any number of COEs or, in fact, any number of cars that you want. I turn to Mr Heng Chiang Meng's comments. He made the point that the LTA should take the trouble to look at the problem at source. In other words, to look at how traffic is generated and for the Government to consider giving incentives for people to minimise travel demand. I think there are already some measures like this in place, as he may be aware. What the LTA has advocated in the White Paper really addresses part of what he is concerned about.”
“He said that traffic during peak hours is now worse than before the whole-day ALS was introduced. Let me explain that the objective of the whole-day ALS is to even out the traffic flow over all periods of the day so that our roads can take more traffic. It allows for a better distribution of traffic in the CBD throughout the whole day. The traffic engineering studies show that the whole-day ALS has achieved its objectives and, if anything, what Mr Sinnakaruppan has highlighted is the fact that the peak ALS fee is probably too low compared to the off-peak fee. It is now $3 and $2. So this is something that we will have to review at the appropriate time. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon suggested that we should allocate COEs. He used the analogy of HDB flats to argue that we should allocate COEs through balloting in order to benefit those who are not so well off. Sir, I think this is not an appropriate analogy. Cars are not analogous to HDB flats. Public transport is the equivalent of HDB flats. HDB flats are allocated by queuing because it is Government's aim to provide every household with a HDB flat. But there is no queuing system for terrace houses and landed property because there is not enough land for everyone to own landed property. So only those who can afford to pay the price will own it. Similarly, Government can ensure universal access to basic public transport services, like buses and MRT. But it cannot guarantee universal car ownership. We strive to be a hundred per cent home owning society, not a hundred per cent car owning society. But let us assume that we do give balloting a try, I take the House through the argument, and assume we take Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon's idea at face value and give it a try. How many COEs do we allocate?”
“It has incorporated features like special flooring and special facilities at the various new stations, including vertical lifts to be incorporated in the new Woodlands Station. But let me take this opportunity to stress that the MRT, like buses, is a form of mass rapid transit, and there must be overriding concerns regarding the safety of all commuters and the overall efficiency of the system. In other words, we have to make sure that the system carries large numbers of people in as safe a manner as possible. And within this design perimeter, where it is sensible to do so, we will certainly take all possible steps to make sure that the concerns of the disabled and the aged are taken care of. And this, I would like to inform the House, has been done, but within reason. It is not possible to cater for all forms of disabilities and this is the reason why there are very highly specified niche services that have been provided by organisations such as the Handicap Welfare Association. There are dial-a-ride services for people who want such services and who have difficulty in using public transport. What the Government has done for them is to exempt these vehicles from customs duty, registration fees, ARF and COEs. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to briefly touch on a very interesting proposal that was put up by Dr Michael Lim. He suggested that utility agencies should be charged for use of road space because they inconvenience the public and cause congestion, and that imposing such a levy will make the agencies more conscious of the externalities that they impose. I think this is an interesting suggestion and I will ask the LTA to look into it. Mr Sinnakaruppan made a point about the whole-day ALS not being effective.”
“Sir, in the spectrum of taxi services worldwide, there is no doubt that taxi fares in Singapore are cheap by world standards, but obviously this is not a consideration for some people. However, this is also accepted by quite a few of the respondents to the surveys which said that 35% or so of our commuters find our taxi fares cheap. It is not a high figure, I admit. Some might argue that we should make taxis as cheap as buses, or cheaper, so that more people can take taxis. I think this is not possible. We have to be realistic. Taxi fares must reflect the higher level of service which they provide, and they must also reflect the congestion that they cause. While we have recognised that taxis are a form of public transport, we never said that they are a basic form of transport, like the bus or even the MRT. They are at the high end of the spectrum and, as such, we will have to make sure that the charges, fees and taxes that are levied on taxis reflect their position in the spectrum. I turn now to several Members' very emotional, or should I say very strong, appeal for consideration for the aged as well as the disabled in the White Paper. They have mentioned that the White Paper does not specifically spell out what the proposed transport system has in store for the aged and the disabled. The White Paper spells out the Government's commitment and plans to provide an efficient, integrated, affordable and sustainable land transport system for all Singaporeans. And I want to assure this House that this includes the disabled and the greying population. When designing public transport systems, thought has been given to being as friendly to the aged, as it makes sense to do so.”
“Ideally it means that, as suggested by some Members, a big car and a small car should pay the same road tax because they more or less occupy the same road space. But this is a big deviation from the present progressive nature of our road tax structure. At the moment, a small motorcycle is subject to an annual road tax of $20. A luxury car can be taxed as much as $5,000. But traffic studies show that a moving motorcycle occupies as much as 70% of the road space of a moving car. So if you were to base strictly on traffic management alone, the motorcycle owners should be paying 70% of the road tax of a luxury car. I am talking about a moving vehicle. So I am explaining all this to make sure that when we change our road tax structure, we cannot completely go for an ideal system. We would have to maintain our progressivity which has been in place for many years. We would have to also, at the same time, take into account social and equity considerations. And at the end of the day, after we have made all the revisions, we would target for revenue neutrality. These are the general principles which Dr Arthur Beng wanted to know. The details would be announced when it is ready. Then the question of road tax rebate when we introduce ERP. That is another story. When we introduce ERP, we will give road tax rebates to motorists in order to help ease or cushion the introduction of a new charge, which is the road pricing fee. These would be largest at the beginning and it would progressively tail off over time. We will also help taxi operators to adjust to ERP by phasing in ERP charges over a few years, as some Members have asked for. As far as taxis are concerned, some Members have fed back concerns from members of the public about the affordability of taxi rides.”
“It is not ideal but it suits our circumstance. And besides, when you talk about competition, there is some form of indirect competition from other forms of public transport, like BusPlus, taxis, and so on. What I would like to submit is that the present issue is really not whether there is too much competition or not enough competition. The issue really is that our traffic conditions will deteriorate and, in fact, are deteriorating, if we do nothing. Because as the traffic becomes more heavy, buses tend to bunch up and they are unable to adhere to their schedules. And this is the nature of bus operations. So one of the immediate tasks that the LTA will have to undertake will be to implement measures to improve traffic flow and improve the efficiency of bus operations by according buses suitable priority on the roads. Dr Arthur Beng has also asked about the future road tax structure. I sense that there was some confusion in the media reports about the review of the road tax structure as well as the road tax rebates that I mentioned in the White Paper. The present vehicle tax structure has accumulated over time. It lacks a consistent basis for charging. For example, the present road tax is based on engine capacity for cars and motorcycles. For goods vehicles, it is based on maximum laden weight. For buses, it is based on seating capacity. And for some goods vehicles, it is based on a flat fee. Before we implement the ERP, we will rationalise the vehicle tax structure to clearly reflect the actual purpose of each tax. For example, road tax is a usage tax and, therefore, should ideally be based on the road space that is occupied by the vehicle.”
“But the bus industry is one example where the Government has used market forces but created an environment where there is limited competition so that it suits our circumstances. There are many different other examples in other countries. There are different models. What the British has done is to go the way that Dr Ow was talking about. They have opened it up completely to free-for-all competition. And what has happened, based on the feedback that we have had, is not entirely satisfactory. Another consideration in this policy that we have is that we need to provide universal public transport services. So in areas where demand is low, we have had to create an obligation on the part of the operators to run prescribed services at regular intervals and frequencies and at affordable fares. And this is the reason why you have bus services running in places like Tuas and Loyang, even though those services are not as frequent as those in town. But there is a bus service. And sometimes, when you are there, you are wondering what the buses are doing there in the first place because they are all running empty. But that is part of the universal service obligation because there are certain times of the day when people do take those buses. So at the end of the day, we have had to look at our own situation and we have to decide a balance between the free-for-all competition that some had advocated and the monopolistic single agency model that others have advocated. We believe that we have a system that works and we would like to keep it that way. Both SBS and TIBS maintain some form of check and balance on one another. The PTC keeps a check on both. We compare their performance standards, cost-effectiveness and service levels. It is a good comparison.”
“Let me put all these transport issues in perspective. As I said earlier, and I repeat it again, the measures that are in the White Paper should not be seen in isolation. They should be seen in totality. Land transport is a very complex and multi-faceted subject and you need different measures to tackle the different aspects of the problem. So for demand management, we have ALS, RPS and VQS. For traffic management, we have GLIDE, GPS, and so on. In fact, there are so many abbreviations that the authors of the White Paper felt it necessary to list them out in an index. All these measures and strategies form a comprehensive package. They each serve a purpose. No single measure on its own will work. So if we rely only on introducing more ALS locations without providing good public transport choices, that will not do. If we provide more roads and build more expressways without appropriate usage measures, again, that will not do. So when Dr Arthur Beng felt that public transport should be improved before we introduce more extensive road pricing, this is precisely the kind of piecemeal solution that we want to avoid. Road pricing is part and parcel of the package. It is necessary because it will freeze up roads for more efficient bus services. And faster travelling time on buses will give motorists who are affected by road pricing an alternative that they are looking for. Dr Ow Chin Hock wanted more assurance that the current bus industry structure is sound. He advocated the opposite of what Mr Low was advocating just now, and he wanted more competition in the industry. As I have explained in this House several times, the Government policy is to encourage competition and to let market forces prevail wherever possible.”
“In other words, when there is a break in the service, or when there is a disruption in the schedule, it will be able to despatch alternatives to plug the gap. That is possible with technology and it is something that the operators are committed to do. These are some of the examples. There are many others. There will be the introduction of intra-town services. Members have complained that some services require transfers. The LTA is relooking at some of these services and see whether there is an opportunity to provide direct services in some cases. There will be express services, as Mr Goh has asked for, because, as he has rightly pointed out, without an MRT and, if we do not improve the public bus service, you do not provide an alternative when you have to implement other restraint measures. So the introduction of express services and airconditioned services are on the cards. And the LTA will, in the course of the next few years, be looking at these short-term measures. Others include real-time bus arrival information system. Again, another Member, and I believe it was Dr Wong, who said that these facilities are available in some other public transport operations that he has seen. These would be introduced. On bus priority schemes, more would be introduced, for example, bus lanes and traffic light priorities. Taxis would be fitted with a radio despatch system, again using GPS (Global Positioning System) technology to better manage supply and demand, and so on. It is not possible for us to list all that is possible or all that is doable in the White Paper. But I would certainly keep Members informed as the LTA goes along in the next few years to plant the intermediate markers on the road to that final destination we are all looking forward to.”
“But what sets SIA apart is that it learns from each incident. It takes great pains to ensure that such incidents do not recur and therefore our transport operators and all who are involved in building this outstanding land transport system must do the same. The LTA will help. We will provide incentives to foster good service. We will train to generally improve conditions on the road. But the point I want to make is, please do not expect miracles overnight. I think that is why Dr Vasoo and Mr Ibrahim Othman are also concerned over things like travel time and waiting times of public transport services. They want to know, not what is going to happen in 15 years' time, but what is going to happen next month, next year. The LTA will work with the public transport operators to implement short-term measures. These short-term measures will be visible. It will make a difference. I agree that there is a necessity for these intermediate markers on the road to our final destination. The White Paper has spelt it out. I will list some of them. The Woodlands MRT extension which will be opened on 10th February will provide residents in the northern region superior public transport services. There will be technology to improve the flow of traffic on our roads. Several junctions are going to be converted into interchanges. These will be completed within the next two to five years. Some of the bus stops in town will be refurbished as part of the project to provide better facilities and amenities at bus stops. The bus fleet will be fitted with new technology which will allow the transport operators to monitor their buses and, if necessary, to do the kind of things that all of us want the operators to do.”
“So Government will invest heavily to improve the public transport system. Business Times added up some numbers and estimated that the world class transport system will cost $20 billion. Economists estimated the bill to be US$9 billion. But a world class transport system cannot be constructed without a commitment on not only the Government's part but also on the part of the users. It cannot be done with a pre-determined budget today. Many Members, I think, felt that the plan is too long term. It is 10 years, 15 years. Why can it not be done now? Why must it take so long? I think Mr Sinnakaruppan, in fact, said that we should have done all these things yesterday. I received a letter a few days after the White Paper was published. An irate father wrote to complain that the bus did not stop for him and his family. This Mr Yeo wrote and said: "My daughter was emotionally shattered. I suffered anguish. My wife was stunned. So we took a taxi to the airport, and we had to explain painfully to our daughter why this particular bus driver was behaving so badly." So he said: "`Improving public transport - chief goal', says the White Paper. Government spells out its vision of top transport system, reports the Straits Times ...", etc. "What does SBS have to say about this?" Sir, I think this is something that we would have to be careful about. The White Paper does not promise that overnight we will transform all bus drivers into angels and make Mr Yeo and his family happy. But, I believe that, over time, such incidents can become less and less frequent. I do not think that it is ever possible for us to reach a situation when there would be no such incidents. Even SIA, world renowned for good service, still receives letters of complaint from time to time.”
“If necessary, because of some of the problems that have been faced by developers in some of these sites, as have been cited, I am sure the LTA will consider taking the lead to demonstrate the feasibility and desirability of building above and around MRT stations. They can do this in conjunction or in joint ventures with private sector developers. I think that is a good idea because then, all ideas and experiences will be brought into this venture, and the city will grow and can only benefit from such a wide variety of ideas and designs. In carrying out this exercise, the LTA will obviously have to work with many other agencies, in particular with HDB and the URA. Dr Wang also asked what exactly is the time-frame for such buildings and what exactly will be built in the next 10 years. And I believe Mr Chiam in another form also wanted to know what exactly will be the rate of progress. I want to say that what is important in the White Paper is a commitment that has been made to develop this outstanding transport system. The White Paper lists out a series of projects that the LTA will undertake, both in the short term as well as in the medium term. Let me, however, point out that these things take time. Our port and airport infrastructure took many years to develop. They are paid for by the port and airport authorities themselves. They are expensive. CAAS took close to 10 years to accumulate sufficient operation surplus to plan to build the third airport terminal. If we adopt the same financing model and ask our public transport operators to pay for the building of new MRT lines, we will probably take maybe not as long as but almost as long as London and Paris to build up their rail network, which is roughly 100 years, and I do not think we can wait 100 years.”
“And above all, it should remain affordable, like the fares for our public transport today which, as I have explained, over the last 15 years have on average risen less than the CPI. The total transport system should also have relatively free flowing roads, just like what we have achieved in our CBD. So, these are some of the attributes and we will continue to learn from the examples of other countries. It will not be cheap but the Government recognises that transport is not purely consumption but also investment in human capital, like investment in education and health which ensures that our workers are healthy, knowledgeable, skilled, and productive. In that same way, the Government is willing to invest in transport facilities to facilitate higher productivity and enhance both economic activities as well as our quality of life. Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Dr Ker Sin Tze have commented separately on the need to have more integrated development of transport facilities within buildings. I agree with them that we should as far as possible integrate transport facilities with building developments as early as possible. And this is to maximise convenience and accessibility. We have done this for densely developed areas, like Raffles City area, where MRT stations are well integrated. But this has to be done progressively. We now have 42 stations. When Woodlands station opens, we will have 48 stations. We cannot develop all 48 stations at once. But we will do so, and when we do so, we will take, as I said earlier, the best examples and experiences of other cities like Hong Kong, London and Tokyo. When we do this, our aim is not just to maximise development potential. It is also to make sure that there is ease of travel and convenience for the commuters.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think I can ever convince Mr Low if he is not willing to be convinced. All I can tell him is that, based on the experience that we have had in several other countries, and based on our own experience, an institution or an enterprise which does not have a responsibility or an incentive to do well will eventually just deteriorate. And I think the fact that even SBS as a private company with the need to pay profits has been able to keep fares below CPI over the last 15 years is, I submit, a credit to them. Sir, some other Members of the House have asked what exactly does the White Paper mean by a world class transport system. Unlike ports and airports, there are no international rankings as such of transport systems, to the best of my knowledge. There is also no one particular system in the world that we are aware of that has the attributes that we are seeking to introduce in this system. Each transport system is unique. What we have to do is to be prepared to learn from, emulate and adapt the best features of systems in other parts of the world. It will have, therefore, the many good qualities of different systems such as the convenience and comprehensiveness of rail systems in cities like London and Paris, that have been quoted in the White Paper. It should be integrated and accessible like the light rail systems in cities like Miami and Hong Kong. It should be financially viable. The Hong Kong public transport system is financially viable. It should have a high percentage of commuters taking public transport, like in Zurich where 75% of trips are made by public transport. That is a quantifiable target that the Land Transport Authority can use in deciding how far it is going in that direction.”
“As a not-for-profit organisation perhaps and as a sole service provider, what incentive is there for the enterprise to reduce operating cost? Why can it not just pass on the operating cost? Why should it, even without making a profit, take the trouble to go and squeeze out all these inefficiencies and rationalise buses? Why not just accept every single proposal that comes along? After all, if the company loses money, or does not make money, it could just raise the fares and pass on the cost to the commuters. Where is that profit motive? Where is that incentive for the operator to operate a viable, profitable company for its shareholders? This is one sure way for inefficiency. This is one sure way of higher operating cost, and eventually higher than necessary fares. And if Mr Low thinks that I am saying this just to rebut him, let me reassure him that this is not the case. We have been through that. Many other cities have done the same. Many cities in the West have nationalised monopoly bus operators. You talk to the operators, you talk to the management of those companies, and you have a totally different approach to the running of a bus company. So you ask them: how do you plan routes? They say, "Oh, very simple. Whatever the people ask, whatever the city mayor asks, we just provide. After all, you just pass on the cost to the commuters." And if there is a shortfall - this is the difference for them - they will go to the city mayor, or they will go to the local government, to cover the balance. What is the big deal? Why go through the hassle of going for an efficient system? I think this is a big lesson that we have learned, and this is the reason why we have decided not to go that way.”
“Mr Low, in trying to suggest a solution to reduce the cost of public transport fares, has put up this proposal on a non-profit making national transport enterprise. I presume that is the correct idea. Can I ask Mr Low whether by this he means that this enterprise will amalgamate the functions of TIBS, SBS and SMRT and since these are public companies, is he also suggesting that the Government nationalises them? If he is, I hope he is not serious because this is a very major step backwards in the opinion of the Government. First of all, we have gone past that stage. We did an exercise many years ago to bring all the different bus companies together, as Mr Low may recall, at a time when 11 bus companies provided a level of service which many people felt was not up to standard. There was free-for-all competition, as Mr Low may well remember. In Hougang there were about three or four services running and buses were poorly maintained and crowded. They broke down and, worse of all, they were not making money at the same time. The Government took the initiative, made many painful adjustments and at the end of which they came up with a single bus company that reduced duplication and wastefulness and revamped the whole transport system. I think this is what Mr Low is alluding to, that we should go back to that system. But what happened after that? Why did we change? Why did we introduce another bus company? For the reason that one single company, without any other means of checking on its performance, would inevitably deteriorate and decline into inefficiency. Not only that, the public was not convinced that a monopoly for buses, no matter how efficient, was actually doing a good job.”
“50 at air-conditioned food courts, and $14-plus-plus if you go to Mandarin Hotel. The point really is that we should make sure that there will always be hawker stalls selling food or chicken rice at that basic price, no frills but food that is enjoyable, palatable and nutritious. But we must also recognise that there are always people who want and who are prepared to pay for something better, whether it is better food, better quality of service, better ambience, or whatever. A higher level of service costs more to provide and therefore it is only fair that those who enjoy the better service pay for it. If customers feel that they are not getting good value for money, very soon that service provider, whether he is a chicken rice seller or a taxi operator or a bus operator, will get to hear about it. So what the White Paper recommends is to widen the spectrum of services that are available to give commuters more choice apart from the basic bus service and the basic taxi service. So air-conditioned buses, Bus-Plus and Taxi-Plus services should also be made available in the same way that hawker centres, air-conditioned food courts and restaurants are available for customers who want different service levels to suit their own pockets. But I think we must also recognise that, over time with rising expectations, even basic services will have to be improved. Even though some Members have called for basic non-air-conditioned bus services to be retained, I can see a situation in the not-too-distant future where the demand would be for all buses to be air-conditioned, in the same way that many years ago some taxis were non-air-conditioned, but today you will not find a non-air-conditioned taxi on the road. I turn now to another point that has been made by Mr Low Thia Khiang.”
“As far as price is concerned, so far the indications are that people are generally satisfied that public transport prices are considered reasonable or cheap. This is not something that I pluck out from the air, but as a result of several surveys that have been done, not just by the authorities but also by some members of the media. There was a recent survey by the Straits Times that revealed that our basic transport services are considered cheap and reasonable by the majority of commuters. As far as bus fares are concerned, 87% of respondents to this survey felt that they are cheap or reasonable. As far as MRT fares are concerned, 83% felt this way. I must confess that I am not exactly surprised by the results because over the last 15 years the average rate of increase in the cost of public transport travel per kilometre was actually lower than the CPI. For buses, the increase per annum was about 2.9%, for MRT it was about 1.9%. Over the same period, the average wage increase was 8.2% per annum. So it is really not surprising because of the productivity improvement and efficiency improvement that have been squeezed out by the operators that the PTC has been able to keep their fare increases below CPI. But we do recognise, and we have to recognise, that this question of affordability means different things to different people. I think Mr Imram actually pointed that out in his speech. Some may be willing to pay a little bit more for better service, others, either they cannot afford to pay for the better service or they are not willing to do so, will settle for the basic service. So it is not just in transport but any other service or good that people want to buy or partake of, whether it is chicken rice at $2 at a hawker stall, $3.”
“I would take Mr Chiam's remarks as withdrawing what he has said earlier and that he appreciates the work that has been put in by the professionals. I think the Land Transport Authority will be pleased to hear that. But I would say that it is one thing for Mr Chiam to play opposition politics and to criticise every Government initiative as a ploy. But it is quite another to say things which are clearly not valid and after a while people may not take him seriously except for hard core opposition supporters. Sir, let me now respond to the Members' queries. Many Members have fed back to us the concerns of their constituents through this House. One of the major concerns that I detect is that commuters fear that they may have to pay unaffordable prices if the plans that are proposed in the White Paper are implemented. Sir, this is an understandable concern and I would like to take this opportunity to allay those concerns. First of all, let me remind Members of this House that today's motion is to develop an outstanding and affordable transport system for Singapore. I think the word "affordable" has been put into the motion quite deliberately and this is the whole substance of the debate that we are having today as to whether Singapore and Singaporeans working with the Government and in partnership with the Government can develop not only an outstanding but also an affordable transport system. Sir, a world class land transport system would not come cheap. I think all Members appreciate that. It will involve a lot of investments in billions of dollars in infrastructure. But the White Paper has also stressed that it must be affordable. It must be affordable not just from the point of view of the commuters but also from the point of view of the nation and the taxpayers.”
“Sir, I would also like to make the point that when Mr Chiam said those words I felt upset not only for the Government but also for the fact that a lot of people, professionals in the Land Transport Authority, have done a lot of work over the last few months. The White Paper was drafted in response to the challenge that I posed to the LTA when I launched the Land Transport Authority last September. To me, his remarks demeaned the efforts that they put in and devalued the professionalism of this statutory board. This is the reason why I felt that it is very important for me to get Mr Chiam to retract his statement that the White Paper is actually an election ploy or an election gimmick. I am glad to note that he has actually done so.”
“Sir, I take it from our exchanges just now that Mr Chiam is going to vote in favour of the motion. If he does not, then I would think that what he has told the House just now is an election ploy. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“Sir, can I take it that Mr Chiam actually agrees with the White Paper on land transport? The only thing that he does not agree with is that it is the title which is too eye-catching. Can I confirm that? So if we rename it "Land Transport System for Singapore", he will vote for and support the motion.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like a categorical answer from Mr Chiam as to which part of this White Paper on "A World Class Land Transport System" he considers to be an election ploy or a gimmick. He was quoted in the Straits Times as saying so. He repeated his statement in Parliament in the debate yesterday. I am now asking him which part of the White Paper he considers to be an election ploy, because, as far as my understanding of the word is concerned, it carries a very negative connotation, in the sense that we are not serious about what we are going to do and we are trying to hoodwink the people. As soon as the election is over, we are going to change all our plans, as Mr Chiam has alluded to just now. So I am going to ask Mr Chiam, Sir, which part of this White Paper he thinks we are going to change after the elections. I am also going to ask him further if he can show this House the relevant plan, strategy or measure that he considers to be a "gimmick". Then I will ask the LTA to expunge that particular measure from the White Paper and not implement it.”
“What exactly does Mr Chiam mean by that, Sir? Mr Chiam See Tong: The Minister has been changing. There will be amendments. I am certain of that. Even if we take the North-East line, at first the Government was supposed ---”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to have an answer to my question. I think that is probably more relevant.”
“I think I can summarise what Mr Cheo has said, ie, that the subject matter is too complex for the SDP to comprehend. Therefore, rather than debating this issue in Parliament, it is much better to go to Subic Bay in the Philippines and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Liberal Party of the Philippines. I think it is a much safer place for the Chairman of the SDP to be in, rather than coming here and exposing what they obviously do not have, an alternative plan for Singapore. But I think it is important for the Chairman of the party, the elected representative of his constituency, to explain to his constituents why they did not take this opportunity to explain what are the alternative plans for Singapore. I think SDP owes the people who voted for them to represent them in Parliament an explanation. Earlier, I asked Mr Chiam whether he spoke on behalf of the SDP and he said that he did not. If that is the case, then I will have to ask him in his personal capacity what he meant when he said that the White Paper is an election ploy, an election gimmick? What is an election gimmick? Based on my understanding of the word "gimmick", it is a trick. It is a publicity stunt. In other words, when the PAP Government and the Land Transport Authority put up our plan we have no intention whatsoever of carrying it out, but it is a means of hoodwinking the people. Can Mr Chiam let this House know which part of the report he considers to be an election ploy? Which chapter, which paragraph, which page is an election ploy, which this Government has no intention whatsoever of carrying out, but is just publicising and publishing this report as a gimmick for the election? Can I ask Mr Chiam this question?”
“Mr Cheo has a very convenient excuse. The SDP is not the government and therefore it is not expected to produce a reasonable report. This is an excuse. But have we not heard that the SDP aspires to be the alternative government of Singapore? And this is the reason why it has stated, when it produced its land transport report, that this is the alternative vision for Singaporeans. If I may read the first sentence of the preface of this report: `In our effort to provide Singaporeans with an alternative government, the SDP feels that it is important to be constructive in its criticisms ...' So how can Mr Cheo now claim that because the SDP is not the government that it is not in a position to, first of all, put up a decent report and, secondly, to comment on what has been put up by the Land Transport Authority? Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have said, the SDP has already published a report on transport policies. So our policies and views are already spelt out there. But the various schemes and plans require a lot of consideration concerning so many factors. So this kind of work can only be undertaken by the Government. It is more appropriate.”
“The fact that there is no mention of the North-East line and the fact that Mr Chiam obviously has got a very important interest in this and has raised it, I guess, supports what he said earlier that he does not know anything about what is going on in the SDP.”
“I would like to thank Mr Chiam for his clarification. If he had said that he was going to speak on behalf of the SDP, then I would have asked him a next question which is: why is this document silent on a point which concerns almost every other Singaporean, ie, the question of the North-east line?”
“If that is the case, then I would like Members of this House to read the SDP's Land Transport Report and to decide for themselves whether their own report contains more details as to convince all Singaporeans that they have a superior system. Instead of which, one Member is conspicuous by his absence and another Member was, until just towards the end of the debate, conspicuous by his silence. The third Member of the SDP, I am presuming, is not speaking on behalf of the SDP. May I ask the Member whether I am correct in assuming so?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank all Members who have participated actively in this debate. They have given us very valuable feedback, many, many suggestions, a lot of food for thought. As Mr Goh Choon Kang said earlier, this is a very important part of the process of building consensus on the Government's transport policy and our commitment to building for Singaporeans a truly superior and world class transport system. Many of the proposals in the White Paper have been accepted. Some Members have expressed doubts and sought clarifications about other proposals and expressed their concerns about still other proposals. I welcome this opportunity to clarify the misunderstanding and also allay some of the Members' concerns. But before I proceed any further, I, too, would like to express my surprise at the SDP's very conspicuous silence. The SDP did make a very big song and dance, some time ago, when it presented the SDP's Land Transport Report 1995. I read it and I decided that it was not worth replying at that time. However, I thought that this would be a wonderful opportunity for the SDP to come out with not only its own proposals but, having seen the plans put up by the Land Transport Authority, to have a full-scale debate with us as to what is the best solution for Singapore in the future. This is a wonderful opportunity for us to hear from the SDP what are the details that are hidden behind its report. Mr Cheo has criticised or commented that the Land Transport Authority's White Paper is not detailed enough and, therefore, he is not able to comment.”
“Our second concern is that we should be fair to future generations. This is to ensure that they too will have a chance to enjoy the comfort and convenience of free-flowing traffic. They too will have a chance to fulfil their aspiration to own cars. Thirdly, this requires of us a willingness and a resolve to implement policies for the long-term good of our country, even if sometimes these measures may be unpopular in the short term. And fourthly, we need to spend the taxpayers' money, our money, wisely at the national level. The business of transporting goods and people is not just about traffic management alone. It is also about the need to grapple with economic and social impact of allocating limited road space and opportunities for vehicle usage and fostering an environment that is conducive to good public transport services and their use. Since the White Paper was presented to Parliament on 2nd January this year, my Ministry has received numerous comments, suggestions and feedback from the public, trade associations, and Members of Parliament directly and through the media. Some have suggested new ways of managing demand. Others have commented on how the LTA should go about developing the road network, and how it should go about developing and improving public transport, and so on. Many have expressed concern about the cost implications. But without exception, all have expressed support for the objectives spelt out in the White Paper. This has been most encouraging. The support of this House for the White Paper will signal its commitment to build a transport system befitting our vision of a city of excellence and one which all of us can be proud of. Mr Speaker, Sir, I look forward to the views and comments of hon. Members. Question proposed. 3.17 pm”
“To put things in perspective, the strategies in the White Paper do not merely spell out how LTA will treat private car owners, or how it will improve public transport, or how it will build more roads per se. All the measures and the policies proposed should be seen as part of a comprehensive strategy to satisfy not only the growing demand for transport, but also the aspirations for a better quality and a higher level of transport services. These measures are all inter-linked. One cannot work without the others. For example, we cannot manage demand for cars without providing good public transport alternatives. We cannot improve public transport without managing usage of roads, and integrating land use and transport planning. We cannot grow our rail network without reviewing our financing framework for rail extensions. The White Paper will serve as a starting point for establishing an understanding, a kind of a social contract among the Government, the people, and the transport service providers on the kind of land transport system that we want: How do we develop and sustain a world class land transport system under the new financing framework? How do commuters co-share responsibility for public transport improvements? To what extent do we, as a nation and as individuals, want to invest in and spend on infrastructure for public transport? In drawing up these measures and proposals, the LTA has been mindful of not just the dollars and cents, but also of the social concerns and the long term implications. And that is why in our policies, we strive to be as fair as possible to all. Often, this means that all road users will pay a little price, some more than others, to ensure that the interests of the majority are served.”
“To do this, the LTA will increase the spectrum of public transport services and service levels, so that Singaporeans can enjoy a wide-ranging, quality transport service that matches their preference and suits their pocket. To support our vision for a world class public transport system, the LTA has also set out to revise the financing formula for rail projects. The revised formula or the redefinition of the current arrangement lowers the hurdle rate, in other words, reduces the passing mark for rail projects. As a result, some rail projects which were previously not viable may now become viable. Or others that were not viable may now be built earlier than previously intended. Sir, our basic policies and infrastructure are sound. The reason why we can be where we are today - relatively free-flowing roads, no gridlock during peak hours, and a generally acceptable public transport network, compared to many other cities, is testimony to the planning and foresight of government planners in earlier years. The Government has always taken a proactive approach in transport management. But the Ministry of Communications and the LTA recognise that we have to do more, by building on the solid foundations that have been set in place. To do nothing now when the trends are clear, will only saddle ourselves and our future generation with a situation which we all know is untenable for our future development. This would be irresponsible on our part. As an editorial in Berita Harian put it, we need to solve this problem and I quote, "a heritage to future generations" (in Malay: "warisan bagi generasi hari muka").”
“The feasibility of underground roads, which are much more expensive to construct and maintain, will be considered. As far as possible, technology will be harnessed to optimise road design and maximise road capacity. That is the second measure. Thirdly, improving the management of vehicle usage to sustain higher vehicle population. No matter which way we turn, we cannot escape the fact that land in Singapore is finite, which means that road capacity is finite. Despite our best efforts in maximising the carrying capacity of our roads with new technology and design, ownership of vehicles and usage of limited road space must continue to be managed. The Vehicle Quota System has worked well for us; it has been accepted by Singaporeans. It will be retained. But we can increase car ownership from 1 in 10 today to 1 in 7, say, in about 15 years' time. This can be achieved only if we can complement the better transport planning and design with usage management. More comprehensive road pricing will have to be implemented. And this allows road users to make better choices, more informed choices, about when to use and where to use their cars. Conceptually, what this means is that those roads which are more congested will cost more to use and charges can also vary with the time of day, again depending on the level of congestion. The last strategy is to improve our public transport system. This is the cornerstone of the land transport strategy. To satisfy the transport needs of commuters and to provide a viable alternative to the car, we need an outstanding public transport system.”
“When the LTA was launched in September last year, I challenged the Authority to develop an outstanding, world class land transport system for Singapore, one that can stand alongside our port and airport in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, one that is integrated, convenient, reliable, comfortable, and most importantly, affordable not only for the commuter but also for the nation as a whole. The White Paper before this House presents the transport planning philosophy and strategies that the LTA will adopt. It spells out the LTA's vision of a world class transport system for Singapore, and it outlines a series of measures that the Authority proposes to take to achieve this mission. Let me just run through the various measures that are encompassed within this multi-pronged strategy. First, integrating urban and transport planning. This is the starting point. This is to minimise the need to travel and to maximise the accessibility of public transport. Mixing residential and work places reduces the need to travel long distances and therefore reduces pressure on our road space and transport system. More intensive developments around as well as on top of MRT stations, bus stations, bus interchanges, maximise the accessibility of public transport and minimise the need for private transport, and integrating different transport facilities together so that transfer between different modes of transport becomes seamless which in turn increases the attractiveness of public transport. So that is pillar number one - integrating land use and transport planning. Second, expanding our road network. Our road network will continue to be expanded where it makes sense from both the traffic as well as the planning point of view and where land is available.”
“Considering the importance of land transport to each and everyone of us and to the nation as a whole, and considering its complexity, the issue cannot be dealt with piecemeal. It has to be taken as a whole. Private and public transport policies and measures have to be considered together. They are inter-linked. The paradox is that while the car is highly valued partly for its ability to provide a high degree of mobility, an unrestrained growth in the number of cars leads to congestion which in turn means less mobility for all road-users, including the car users. But car users argue that they are not willing to give up the convenience of the car for public transport because it is slow and unreliable. Buses are slow and unreliable, in turn, partly because of congestion. Inefficient and inadequate public transport drives more to want to own and use private cars, and so on it goes, in a vicious circle. The story is a familiar one in many cities around the world. And that is why I say that for this entire transport issue to be addressed, we have to do it in a holistic manner and on a comprehensive basis. Last March, I informed the House that the Government would set up a new statutory board, called the Land Transport Authority (LTA), to spearhead all efforts to plan and implement a road transport system which will meet the needs of Singapore, now and in the future. The formation of the LTA is a significant milestone in the Government's efforts to keep Singapore and Singaporeans on the move. As a single integrated agency, the Authority will be able to ensure that the transport projects and measures that have been carried out previously by separate agencies, complement one another in the most effective and cost-efficient manner.”
“Singaporeans are now more well travelled and they are more well read. They are now more aware of the severe traffic problems in many other cities. So the surveys perhaps reflect a better appreciation of what we do have and what we do enjoy in Singapore. All of us now must be keenly aware that we have not achieved this through doing nothing, simply leaving the vehicle population to grow unmanaged, unrestricted or to leave our public transport system to degenerate. Land transport is management intensive. We have to keep on fine-tuning it. We have to keep on coming up with new initiatives in order to ensure that our roads continue to be free-flowing. Even though we do these things, already there are areas where traffic is building up and congestion is getting unacceptably persistent. I still receive lots of complaints about the difficulty of getting taxis. There is still the issue of COE prices and people's aspirations for car-ownership unfulfilled. These, as they say, are the problems of success, of many years of high economic growth, of full employment and high wages and, more importantly, of confidence in our future. But, if we do not take action now to solve these problems, again they will erode our competitiveness and affect our growth. A good transport system is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. It supports our economy and it enhances our quality of life. Sir, the issue before us is how we can, within the constraints of the limited land that we have, provide the best mobility for Singaporeans today, and meet our transport needs into the next century. Members have on many occasions in this House suggested various ways to improve our transport system. I agree with many of their suggestions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move: `That this House endorses the Paper Cmd 1 of 1996 on "A World Class Land Transport System" as the basis for developing an outstanding and affordable transport system for Singaporeans.' Sir, land transport touches each one of us almost every day of our lives. It affects our lifestyle, where we work, where we live, how our children go to school, and how we spend our leisure hours. It is a major economic activity, directly providing jobs for 28,000 people and indirectly many more. It accounts directly for 1.3% of our GDP. Families spend about 14% of their disposable income on transport. There is a Chinese saying that there are four essentials in life - yi, shi, zhu, xing - [ ] clothing, food, housing and transport. Singaporeans are well-clothed, well-fed and well-housed. The question is: do they also enjoy a good transport system? I believe I can say with very little fear of contradiction that the answer is yes. We have succeeded so far in keeping our roads congestion free. Our bus, rail and taxi network is one of the most comprehensive in the region. According to a recent Lianhe Zaobao survey on the lifestyle of Singaporeans, 97% of the 565 respondents said that they were satisfied with the public transport system, 27% said that they were "very satisfied" and 70% "somewhat satisfied". Another survey commissioned by the Straits Times Life! section showed similar findings. In its report of 2nd January 1996, it noted that two out of three or 66% of the 538 respondents said that the overall public transport system was "good", 33% found the system "so so", and only 1% reported and rated it "poor". In fact, the level of overall satisfaction reported was higher than that found by Lianhe Zaobao.”
“We should leave our options open and my Ministry, together with the MPA and, of course, in discussion with PSA as well, will consider all these factors carefully before we decide. The overriding consideration, of course, is what is in the best interest of Singapore and the Singapore economy. As far as the interests of staff are concerned, the Bill specifically provides that all the staff from PSA, Marine Department and the National Maritime Board will be transferred to MPA and they will enjoy terms that are no less favourable than those currently enjoyed by them. Indeed, the various unions that are representing these staff members have been briefed on the MPA's terms and conditions of service and I am pleased to see that they are agreeable that these terms and conditions are fair. Dr Beng also asked about protection of seafarers' interests. The seafarers' interests are currently being handled by the National Maritime Board (NMB). And when the MPA is set up, this function will be transferred from the NMB. The new Authority will continue to train seafarers to promote their welfare as well as to develop, promote and regulate their employment. Again, the relevant staff unions have been consulted. In this case, the Singapore Organisation of Seamen (SOS) as well as the Singapore Maritime Officers' Union (SMOU) have been briefed on the setting up of the MPA and they have been assured that the MPA will continue to discharge effectively the functions of the NMB. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Dr Arthur Beng for supporting the Bill. He asked several questions. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the issues involved. A very important question is whether there will be other cargo terminal operators in Singapore after PSA is corporatised. Whether the Government will introduce one or more cargo terminal operators after corporatisation of PSA depends on several factors. First of all, we would have to look at the overall level of competition that is faced by PSA. As I indicated in my speech just now, the transhipment business is an international business. And as an international business, PSA actually does face competition. So we must take this into account. There are other transhipment centres which compete with PSA. For example, on the trans-Pacific route, PSA competes with Kaohsiung in Taiwan. On the European route, competition comes from Colombo. That is the first issue we will have to tackle. Secondly, we have to be mindful of the fact that a port depends very heavily on economies of scale. Overhead costs involved in building a port and in running a port are very high - gantry cranes, land reclamation, etc. And if these overhead costs can be spread over larger and larger volumes of containers handled, the unit cost will come down and economies of scale will set in. But we must also recognise that at some stage, diseconomies of scale will also be possible. At this stage, I believe that this has not yet happened with PSA, but this is something that we have to be mindful of. So I cannot say with certainty whether there will be a second or even a third cargo terminal operator in Singapore. But I can say that we are not closing the door to such a possibility of domestic competition.”
“Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister whether it is also timely to have a forum under the MPA whereby the operators, the port users and the port regulators can meet and share their common worries and make strategic plans ahead. This is similar to the Public Transport Council for land transport. This group should not only discuss money matters but also plan strategically together for the future to ensure that Singapore maintains its competitive edge as the number one port. Finally, Sir, as in all exercises of this sort where several existing bodies are amalgamated into one, I would like to seek an assurance from the Minister that the interests of the staff have been fairly looked into. Furthermore, the National Maritime Board which looks after our seafarers now comes under the MPA. Although the MPA has a very large charter and the number of Singapore seafarers is not large, it is important that the interest of our seafarers deserves careful monitoring by the MPA.”
“I believe that this is provided by the MPA Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, with the impending corporatisation of PSA in 1997, it is now timely and correct to separate the operator (PSA) from the regulator (MPA). The reasons for corporatisation of PSA have been explained by the Minister. The MPA will be formed by merging the Maritime Department, the National Maritime Board and the parts of PSA which undertake statutory functions. Sir, with increasing competition to provide equally good if not better port services in the region, it is timely that the MPA is formed. Besides its regulatory function, there must be a central agency like the MPA which has the resources and will effectively monitor events regionally and globally to protect our maritime interests and to ensure that we remain an efficient and competitive port. Our long-term strategic maritime interests must be continually updated so that we will remain a major port and an International Maritime Centre. Sir, as a port industry regulator, the MPA will have to ensure that the providers of services to our ports, eg, pilotage, will be of high standard, especially when issues of safety are concerned. The privatisation of pilotage is especially of concern to the GPC, as this is linked to safety in a very crowded port. I am sure that the Minister would like to reassure the House that this is an area that will be under careful scrutiny. Furthermore, to maintain competitiveness, service standards must be set by the MPA and must be met by the operator. In this context, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is his intention to have more than one operator, ie, besides PSA, will there be other operators?”